# Schwarzenegger Bans Smoking with Kids in Cars



## BigFrankMD

http://www.news10.net/display_story.aspx?storyid=33794

ya its real.


----------



## smokinpoke

can't wait till the papparazzi catch him with a huge churchill while shuttling the kids around.


----------



## boonedoggle

one step closer to total government control...


----------



## ResIpsa

Arnold isn't responsible for this ban, The CA legislature is. Blame them.:tu


----------



## replicant_argent

ahhh. California.




The Granola state....











full of Fruits, Nuts, and Flakes.


One more reason I would never want to live there, and I don't typically smoke in the car with my 15 year old, anyway. It's the principle of the thing.

Visiting there, yeah maybe.


----------



## smokinpoke

replicant_argent said:


> ahhh. California......Visiting there, yeah maybe.


I would be afraid to visit. I would end up spending all my vacation money on citations.


----------



## Andyman

replicant_argent said:


> ahhh. California.
> 
> The Granola state....
> 
> full of Fruits, Nuts, and Flakes.
> 
> One more reason I would never want to live there, and I don't typically smoke in the car with my 15 year old, anyway. It's the principle of the thing.
> 
> Visiting there, yeah maybe.


talk about the pot calling the kettle black!!! :r land of 10,000 "flakes" and I am not speaking of snowflakes


----------



## stig

They're not saying don't smoke in your car, they're saying don't smoke in your car if there are also kids in your car which IMHO is not a bad thing. I don't smoke with my kids in the car anyway so this is not something that I see as a loss of freedom. Get over it, move on.:2


----------



## replicant_argent

stig said:


> They're not saying don't smoke in your car, they're saying don't smoke in your car if there are also kids in your car which IMHO is not a bad thing. I don't smoke with my kids in the car anyway so this is not something that I see as a loss of freedom. Get over it, move on.:2


unfortunately, it's a slippery slope from your car to your house.

To your property.


----------



## Beer Doctor

I'll probably get ostracized for this but I don't think there is anything wrong with this. In fact, I applaud this ban. I can't tell you how many times I've seen windows rolled up and parents smoking while their kids are sitting in the back. It makes me sick and isn't fair to the kids.:2


----------



## SeanGAR

Beer Doctor said:


> I'll probably get ostracized for this but I don't think there is anything wrong with this. In fact, I applaud this ban. I can't tell you how many times I've seen windows rolled up and parents smoking while their kids are sitting in the back. It makes me sick and isn't fair to the kids.:2


Damn straight. Why should kids suffer because of the stupidity or indifference of their parents? This law was passed because of stupid people smoking with their kids in the car and windows rolled up, which I see all the time around here.


----------



## Andyman

stig said:


> They're not saying don't smoke in your car, they're saying don't smoke in your car if there are also kids in your car which IMHO is not a bad thing. I don't smoke with my kids in the car anyway so this is not something that I see as a loss of freedom. Get over it, move on.:2


I agree - kids, small enclosed space, smoke = *Bad*..

But what if the Gov. comes and tells you you cannot give your kids soda.. it's bad, causes hyper activity Etc..

Where do we draw the line?


----------



## Beer Doctor

Kids can legally have soda they can't legally smoke cigs/cigars. By placing a child in an enclosed area and exposing them to smoke they are essentially smoking.



Andyman said:


> I agree - kids, small enclosed space, smoke = *Bad*..
> 
> But what if the Gov. comes and tells you you cannot give your kids soda.. it's bad, causes hyper activity Etc..
> 
> Where do we draw the line?


----------



## Andyman

replicant_argent said:


> unfortunately, it's a slippery slope from your car to your house.
> 
> To your property.


I don't see any difference here... If they can ban one they can ban smoking in your own house..

I don't smoke in my house.. However I wouldn't support a bill that would ban it either..


----------



## replicant_argent

there is a point where stupid things must be allowed. Legislating to the lowest common denominator is simply a factor of the increasing nanny state. Deplorable.



I would, however support the laudable actions of being able to walk up to some moron and say "Hey, you dumb piece of dung, put seatbelts on the kids and put those cigarettes out."



I would also like to require a test be passed before idiots can breed more idiots, and state sterilization or birth control before dim bulbs can procreate.

I also realize that perhaps isn't an option.


----------



## stig

Andyman said:


> I don't see any difference here... If they can ban one they can ban smoking in your own house..
> 
> I don't smoke in my house.. However I wouldn't support a bill that would ban it either..


I wouldn't support that bill either but it's a bit different than smoking in your car with your kids. In a house kids have their own room and many people that I know who smoke cigars either smoke in just one room or don't smoke inside at all such as myself. However, if it's legal and I am doing it in the privacy of my own home, which I own then I will do whatever I want to. Keep in mind that if I smoked inmy home I wouldn't smoke in the same room that my kids are in, in fact even if I smoke out on my back deck I try and keep my kids away until I am done with my cigar because I don't want them to be subject to the second hand smoke. In the end it all comes down to people acting responsibly. If everyone did this already then there wouldn't be people trying to make all these laws. Not that I agree with them.


----------



## 12stones

The root of the problem here is the degradation of our personal choices. Yes, it's stupid for a parent to smoke in an enclosed car with their young children; however, when it becomes a law that takes the choice of any action away from you, then it's a limitation to our personal freedoms.

Everyone can continue to say, "well, this one's alright cause it's for the kids" and "this one's okay because it doesn't really affect me" but someday, and yes it is coming, all of us are going to wake up and wonder when we were no longer truly free. I blame stupid parents and apathetic people for this legislation.


----------



## DBall

stig said:


> In the end it all comes down to people acting responsibly. If everyone did this already then there wouldn't be people trying to make all these laws.


:tpd: 100%

This is like McDonalds having to put a "hey, genius, the piping hot coffee you just bought from us might be kinda warm" disclaimer on their coffee cups. Some people are complete idiots.

If you're smoking in your car with the windows rolled up and a kid in there, you should be taken in for endangering the welfare of a child, not just written a ticket.

:2


----------



## SeanGAR

replicant_argent said:


> I would also like to require a test be passed before idiots can breed more idiots, and state sterilization or birth control before dim bulbs can procreate.


Well, thats what I think too.

I disagree with laws that restrict personal freedom for the most part, but if people are endangering their kids then I think we need to act. SHS in kids is associated with increased risk of asthma; I think these studies are pretty solid.


----------



## Darrell

He did not say you could not smoke joints or bongs, some of you're still OK. :tu

I kid, I kid. :r


----------



## j6ppc

SeanGAR said:


> Well, thats what I think too.
> 
> I disagree with laws that restrict personal freedom for the most part, but if people are endangering their kids then I think we need to act. SHS in kids is associated with increased risk of asthma; I think these studies are pretty solid.


I have to agree with this. Exposing our kids to second hand smoke is just plain stupid and the only sad part of this is that what should be plain ond fashioned common sense needs to be legislated 'cos some asshat or other did not get the memo.


----------



## croatan

What if you own a convertible?

In my opinion, any legislation of this sort is overreaching and a bad thing.


----------



## smokinpoke

what about a 78 camaro with t-tops.


----------



## jaycarla

replicant_argent said:


> unfortunately, it's a slippery slope from your car to your house.
> 
> To your property.


EXACTLY!!

Light up a smoke in a car with ANYONE that doesn't smoke and you are approaching needing a timeout, but a law.

I'll stop now.


----------



## BigFrankMD

12stones said:


> The root of the problem here is the degradation of our personal choices. Yes, it's stupid for a parent to smoke in an enclosed car with their young children; however, when it becomes a law that takes the choice of any action away from you, then it's a limitation to our personal freedoms.
> 
> Everyone can continue to say, "well, this one's alright cause it's for the kids" and "this one's okay because it doesn't really affect me" but someday, and yes it is coming, all of us are going to wake up and wonder when we were no longer truly free. I blame stupid parents and apathetic people for this legislation.


My thoughts exactly. Creeping incrementalism.


----------



## Perry72

Why the hell would anyone wanna smoke with kids in the car. What kind of sick bastard would it take to do that?

Anywho, if I read this correct, and if i'm wrong please correct me, the law is for smoking with kids in the car. I'm not sure if this means you can smoke in your car if your by yourself or not. If this is the case, i'm all for it. Your rights are only legit if they don't infringe on someone elses rights to life, liberty and the pursuit. If your smoking with some young kids in the car, convertible or not, your stepping all over there rights to life and not breathing in the smoke thats gonna find its way to the back seat one way or another. That makes your rights void. That's just the way I see it, and not meant to upset anyone. If this law means you cant smoke in your car when your alone, or when you have other consenting adults riding along, I don't agree with that at all.

My :2


----------



## Deriffe

Andyman said:


> I agree - kids, small enclosed space, smoke = *Bad*..
> 
> But what if the Gov. comes and tells you you cannot give your kids soda.. it's bad, causes hyper activity Etc..
> 
> Where do we draw the line?


We don't. We allow the government to slowly nickle and dime our liberty away by passing laws that slowly turn us into a complete nanny state. I don't smoke with my kids in my car either. I don't smoke when I eat either. But now, I can't sit in a bar in most states and have a beer and a cigar because somebody decided I was too stupid to make my own decisions and take responsibility for my own actions.

Before I die, it will be legal to smoke pot and illegal to smoke a cigarette. Before I die, it will be illegal to eat more than two Big Mac's in the same week.

But, THIS law isn't all that bad right? :BS


----------



## SeanGAR

I hate the thought of a nanny state and more laws as much as anybody, but good laws protect the weakest among us (cf kids).


----------



## dls

I just thought I'd chime in here, my father used to smoke while I was in the truck with him, but he made sure to keep the cigarette out the window, and blow all of the smoke out the window. So far so good, no ill effects.


----------



## Budprince

ResIpsa said:


> Arnold isn't responsible for this ban, The CA legislature is. Blame them.:tu


As Governor he could have exercised his veto power. . . he IS complicit in this ban. Arnold is a social liberal, this decision doesn't surprise me in the least. This is the Nanny state at its worst!


----------



## Perry72

I really wish someone would tell exactly what *right* or *liberty* is being violated here. Lots of people keep throwing those words around till they lose all meaning. Just aggrovating cause noone has the right or liberty to force a small child to breathe smoke. And I just flat out refuse to here any of that *windows down* bullshit. Regardless of other bills that this one may lead to in the future, this bill is in no way impressing upon anyones rights or civil liberties.


----------



## BigFrankMD

Perry72 said:


> I really wish someone would tell exactly what *right* or *liberty* is being violated here. Lots of people keep throwing those words around till they lose all meaning. Just aggrovating cause noone has the right or liberty to force a small child to breathe smoke. And I just flat out refuse to here any of that *windows down* bullshit. Regardless of other bills that this one may lead to in the future, this bill is in no way impressing upon anyones rights or civil liberties.


ya but we all know all the shit goes out the window as soon as someone drops the C bomb...Children.

What kills me we "care so much" about the children, but only when its to get some sort of legislation across or get something done. No one cares about the children until its too late it seems, or they fit into some kind of agenda. Unless they are needed for a cause just keep em jacked up on meds. Sad part is politicians are exploiting children to keep taking shit away and taxing us to death.

Also, when I grew up my parents smoked around me and people before did also. I do not have asthma or any problems like that, it didnt affect my way of life or any of that bullshit. Christ from the 20's- till the 70's everyone freaking smoked. If they are correct about all the cancer etc, then why are populations at a record high? Just make ya wonder sometimes.


----------



## Perry72

BigFrankMD said:


> ya but we all know all the shit goes out the window as soon as someone drops the C bomb...Children.
> 
> What kills me we "care so much" about the children, but only when its to get some sort of legislation across or get something done. No one cares about the children until its too late it seems, or they fit into some kind of agenda. Unless they are needed for a cause just keep em jacked up on meds. Sad part is politicians are exploiting children to keep taking shit away and taxing us to death.
> 
> Also, when I grew up my parents smoked around me and people before did also. I do not have asthma or any problems like that, it didnt affect my way of life or any of that bullshit. Christ from the 20's- till the 70's everyone freaking smoked. If they are correct about all the cancer etc, then why are populations at a record high? Just make ya wonder sometimes.


Is it worth it if just one kid in history gets cancer and dies from people smoking around them? Of course kids are going to be smoked around and grow up with no problems as a result. It's the kids that don't that i'm worried about.


----------



## MyMonkey

Andyman said:


> I don't see any difference here... If they can ban one they can ban smoking in your own house..


I would certainly hate to see that one come down the pipe.

Agreed, slippery slope. Although, I recall my parents both smoking like a chimney with me and my brother in the car. Nasty stuff those Menthols. :ss


----------



## BigFrankMD

Andyman said:


> I don't see any difference here... If they can ban one they can ban smoking in your own house..
> 
> I don't smoke in my house.. However I wouldn't support a bill that would ban it either..


They have already started banning smoking in apartment buildings and other larger multi unit residences, and in public areas too.


----------



## cookieboy364

Senate Bill 7 by Sen. Jenny Oropeza, D-Long Beach, will prohibit drivers and passengers from smoking cigars, cigarettes and pipes when the car is in motion and at rest.




:BS:BS:BS:BS:BS:BS

enough said


----------



## 12stones

Perry72 said:


> Is it worth it if just one kid in history gets cancer and dies from people smoking around them? Of course kids are going to be smoked around and grow up with no problems as a result. It's the kids that don't that i'm worried about.


So then, Perry, where's the limit? How much will you let government dictate that you can't do for someone else's sake? No fast food, no cigars, no motorcycles, no rock music? Where do we let it get to?


----------



## Perry72

We're not talking about limits. We are talking about one single bill that affects one single subject. I don't recall seeing *Schwarzenegger Bans the Sale of Big Macs* on the title of this thread. I'll worry about the next peice of legislation when it comes. I don't see one single problem with this bill. If you smoke in a car with a child you are in direct violation of that childs *liberty* not to breathe *YOUR *smoke. And whenever you violate another human beings rights or liberties intentionaly, that should be a criminal act every time. Thats my view on this subject and my final statement.


----------



## 12stones

The problem with your thinking Perry is that this bill sets precedent for the next, and the next, and the next. I absolutely agree with children not having to inhale other people's smoke; I just don't agree with the way it's being done. Apathetic approaches to this kind of legislation will be our nation's undoing.


----------



## jbock

This idea of liberties being taken away is highly questionable. I am all for personal choice, however, when the health and safety of kids is put in to question, then by all means, legislate away.

I absolutely love smoking cigars, however, I will not, under any circumstances smoke one when my kids are nearby. They are too precious and although I may have the RIGHT to smoke my cigars, I DO NOT have the right to subject them to the dangers.


----------



## dunng

I for one would never smoke in front of my child, let alone have her in the car while I am smoking... I do not mind this ban, but I am afraid of where it is going. :ss


----------



## replicant_argent

jbock said:


> I am all for personal choice, however, when the health and safety of kids is put in to question, then by all means, legislate away.


Mr. Jbock, as your elected State Representative, it is in your best interests to present the following bill.

The State of X will no longer let the parents of any child (custodial or non-custodial) smoke, imbibe, or partake of any kind of tobacco product. The well being of our nations children is at stake and we realize that the use of any tobacco product shortens the life of the parent and subsequently affects the well being of the child by not providing the maximum lifespan of the Parent.

Try that on for size when you think about the "go ahead, legislate away" slippery slope.


----------



## borndead1

Perry72 said:


> I really wish someone would tell exactly what *right* or *liberty* is being violated here.


The right to raise your children without interference from an intrusive, power-hungry government.

What the government is doing here is stepping in between you and your children, effectively usurping your right to raise _your_ children as _you_ see fit, even if you are an idiot who smokes around your kids.

Ever hear the "frog soup" analogy?

Lately, the conspiracy theorists are sounding alot less crazy to me.


----------



## Perry72

12stones said:


> The problem with your thinking Perry is that this bill sets precedent for the next, and the next, and the next. I absolutely agree with children not having to inhale other people's smoke; I just don't agree with the way it's being done. Apathetic approaches to this kind of legislation will be our nation's undoing.


How else can you do it? There is no other way. People are too stupid and selfish to do it themselves. That's why we have laws. We are a nation of laws, not a nation of do the right thing.


----------



## Perry72

borndead1 said:


> The right to raise your children without interference from an intrusive, power-hungry government.
> 
> What the government is doing here is stepping in between you and your children, effectively usurping your right to raise _your_ children as _you_ see fit, even if you are an idiot who smokes around your kids.
> 
> Ever hear the "frog soup" analogy?
> 
> Lately, the conspiracy theorists are sounding alot less crazy to me.


That is by far the stupidist thing I have ever heard. OMFG!

I'm done with this thread. I will not come back in, so don't bother responding.


----------



## borndead1

Perry72 said:


> People are too stupid and selfish to do it themselves.


People are too stupid to feed their kids healthy food as well.

And too stupid to help their kids with their homework.

And too stupid to take their kids to a dentist.

And too stupid to teach their kids about sex.

And too stupid to discipline their kids.

And too stupid to teach their kids morals.

And too stupid to teach their kids about drugs.

And too stupid to..........raise their kids.


----------



## replicant_argent

Just give Perry his ball and let him go home.


----------



## Andyman

borndead1 said:


> People are too stupid to feed their kids healthy food as well.
> 
> And too stupid to help their kids with their homework.
> 
> And too stupid to take their kids to a dentist.
> 
> And too stupid to teach their kids about sex.
> 
> And too stupid to discipline their kids.
> 
> And too stupid to teach their kids morals.
> 
> And too stupid to teach their kids about drugs.
> 
> And too stupid to..........raise their kids.


:tpd: Well said..

I was just thinking about this yesterday... We have increasing violence on the street. Innocent people are killed because people are too stupid to raise their kids...

Edit:

If government wants to do womething usefull and save lives why don't they pass legislation to help fight gang violence???


----------



## Pablo

replicant_argent said:


> Just give Perry his ball and let him go home.


It's unfortunate when folks can't debate issues in a mature fashion. We seem to have someone like that in every good debate thread that comes up.


----------



## replicant_argent

pds said:


> It's unfortunate when folks can't debate issues in a mature fashion. We seem to have someone like that in every good debate thread that comes up.


Absolutely correct, my apologies, Perry.


----------



## garilla

Andyman said:


> I agree - kids, small enclosed space, smoke = *Bad*..
> 
> But what if the Gov. comes and tells you you cannot give your kids soda.. it's bad, causes hyper activity Etc..
> 
> Where do we draw the line?


Agreed. Where do they draw the line? Seems Kalifornia has been redefining where to draw that line and worn out many an eraser by redrawing it over and over again for _years_. Although I would tend to agree with kids and closed spaces. Hell, I'm concerned about it when I'm sitting with other _adults _outdoors around the same table when I know others don't smoke cigars.

Couldn't pay this cigar-smoking, gun nut enough money to move there. _*Ever*_. My apologies for those who live there, and my condolences for the recent passing of your rights.

If you happen to see Common F. Sense bruised and bleeding on the sidewalk in that state, at least do him a favor and help him to his feet.

- Garilla


----------



## yamaha6000

Perry72 said:


> Why the hell would anyone wanna smoke with kids in the car. What kind of sick bastard would it take to do that?
> 
> Anywho, if I read this correct, and if i'm wrong please correct me, the law is for smoking with kids in the car. I'm not sure if this means you can smoke in your car if your by yourself or not. If this is the case, i'm all for it. Your rights are only legit if they don't infringe on someone elses rights to life, liberty and the pursuit. If your smoking with some young kids in the car, convertible or not, your stepping all over there rights to life and not breathing in the smoke thats gonna find its way to the back seat one way or another.
> 
> My :2


Sorry, but children do not have rights. Can they smoke? Can they drive a car? Can they get a job? No, they can't, but none the less, you shouldn't smoke in your car with kids, but is this something we need to waste our time on to write a piece of legislation? People who are dumb enough to smoke in their car with kids are going to do it anyway, this does nothing.


----------



## BigFrankMD

yamaha6000 said:


> Sorry, but children do not have rights. Can they smoke? Can they drive a car? Can they get a job? No, they can't, but none the less, you shouldn't smoke in your car with kids, but is this something we need to waste our time on to write a piece of legislation? People who are dumb enough to smoke in their car with kids are going to do it anyway, this does nothing.


This is a little harsh but I agree. Stupid people will continue to finds ways of harming others regardless of what laws are in place. I really dont think we need ANOTHER law. I mean we have enough , start enforcing the current ones. If someone really wanted to make a case against someone smoking with a kid in the car they could go along the lines of neglect and endangerment. Weither or not you are for or against anti smoking laws. I honestly think we as americans should have better to worry about. But I do enjoy the debate here!


----------



## Snakeyes

You don't really believe that having a job, driving a car, or smoking defines whether or not you have rights do you??? Human beings, REGARDLESS OF AGE have rights, PERIOD. My children have the right to breathe air free of smoke, and I do not have the right to take that away from them even if I do smoke. Will this legislation stop ALL adults from smoking in cars with their kids in the car? Likely not. But it might stop some and that makes it worthwhile. I think we're missing the bigger picture and that is that there are times we need to make a law that simply states what we value.



yamaha6000 said:


> Sorry, but children do not have rights. Can they smoke? Can they drive a car? Can they get a job? No, they can't, but none the less, you shouldn't smoke in your car with kids, but is this something we need to waste our time on to write a piece of legislation? People who are dumb enough to smoke in their car with kids are going to do it anyway, this does nothing.


----------



## tedrodgerscpa

Beer Doctor said:


> I'll probably get ostracized for this but I don't think there is anything wrong with this. In fact, I applaud this ban. I can't tell you how many times I've seen windows rolled up and parents smoking while their kids are sitting in the back. It makes me sick and isn't fair to the kids.:2


Couldn't have said it better myself.

If you can't wait until the kids aren't in the car, you've got a real problem


----------



## borndead1

I couldn't disagree more.



I believe there are certain powers that the government should NEVER have, no matter what. These types of laws set very dangerous precedents. On the surface they may look good. But seriously, how much power do you want the government to have over how you raise your children?


----------



## fireman43

I rarely ever post in these political threads, and what I am going to post is NOT an attack on anyone else. It is also just MY opinion on the matter which I am entitled to as much as anyone else. 
Smoking with kids in the car. WRONG. No argument from me about that one.
The government telling me I CAN'T smoke in my car with my kids if I were an idiot and chose to. WRONG. In MY opinion this is just the first step towards more strong arming by the government. What's next after this? If you have kids you can't own a dog because it might one day bite your child for whatever reason. You can't ride your kid on a motorcycle because it inherently puts the child at risk by not being in an enclosed automobile. No more school sports because of the possibility of the child breaking a bone. No more theme parks if you have kids because the risk involved with riding all the rides if something were to happen. All of these are stretches I agree, but many would say the same thing about the legistlation in question as well. Is it really going to stop people from smoking with their kids in the car? Some yes, but they will be the minority in MY opinion since most people who really care don't smoke with their kids in the car now.


----------



## replicant_argent

Lowest Common Denominator Legislation.
We may be a society of laws, but too many laws are as troublesome as not enough laws.


----------



## Snakeyes

I disagree. This law does not have any effect on how you raise your kids. It is protecting the rights of children. Children often do not have the power to enforce or protect their own rights so we as a society must put laws in place to make sure that their rights are protected. Children, no matter what family environment, all have the same rights and one of those is the right to breathe air not contaminated with cigarette/cigar smoke. We as parents don't have the right to take that away from them just because we are their parents and we certainly shouldn't hide behind the guise that it is a parenting issue.

If this law told me (and I'm Canadian so it doesn't but for arguement's sake) where I could and couldn't send my children to school, what clothes they could wear or what values I could teach them, then yes, I would agree that this is a bad thing. However, it does not. It protects childrens' rights to breathe clean air. I really can't believe this is an issue.



borndead1 said:


> I couldn't disagree more.
> 
> I believe there are certain powers that the government should NEVER have, no matter what. These types of laws set very dangerous precedents. On the surface they may look good. But seriously, how much power do you want the government to have over how you raise your children?


----------



## Snakeyes

fireman43 said:


> I rarely ever post in these political threads, and what I am going to post is NOT an attack on anyone else. It is also just MY opinion on the matter which I am entitled to as much as anyone else.
> Smoking with kids in the car. WRONG. No argument from me about that one.
> The government telling me I CAN'T smoke in my car with my kids if I were an idiot and chose to. WRONG. In MY opinion this is just the first step towards more strong arming by the government. What's next after this? If you have kids you can't own a dog because it might one day bite your child for whatever reason. You can't ride your kid on a motorcycle because it inherently puts the child at risk by not being in an enclosed automobile. No more school sports because of the possibility of the child breaking a bone. No more theme parks if you have kids because the risk involved with riding all the rides if something were to happen. All of these are stretches I agree, but many would say the same thing about the legistlation in question as well. Is it really going to stop people from smoking with their kids in the car? Some yes, but they will be the minority in MY opinion since most people who really care don't smoke with their kids in the car now.


The difference is that, with the exception of the motorcycle example (you made no mention of helmet or motorcycle seat), all are ACCEPTABLE risks in our society. The benefits of exercise in organised sports far out weigh the risks involved. The same for owning a family pet or the fun of an amusement park. You do not have the right, however, to place your child in UNNECESSARY risk. Riding with your 4 year old on a motorcycle doing a hundred miles an hour with no helmet, involving your child in blood sports, owning an aligator for a family pet, or taking them to an amusement park with broken down rides (yes, I know they are all outlandish but they prove the point) are UNNECESSARY risks and as a parent you should be held accountable for placing your child in danger.

Smoking with your child in the car is placing your child in UNNECESSARY risk. There is no benefit to it, PERIOD. It isn't healthy and we all know that. There's no arguement here.


----------



## fireman43

Snakeyes said:


> The difference is that, with the exception of the motorcycle example (you made no mention of helmet or motorcycle seat), all are ACCEPTABLE risks in our society. The benefits of exercise in organised sports far out weigh the risks involved. The same for owning a family pet or the fun of an amusement park. You do not have the right, however, to place your child in UNNECESSARY risk. Riding with your 4 year old on a motorcycle doing a hundred miles an hour with no helmet, involving your child in blood sports, owning an aligator for a family pet, or taking them to an amusement park with broken down rides (yes, I know they are all outlandish but they prove the point) are UNNECESSARY risks and as a parent you should be held accountable for placing your child in danger.
> 
> *Smoking with your child in the car is placing your child in UNNECESSARY risk. There is no benefit to it, PERIOD. It isn't healthy and we all know that.* There's no arguement here.


I'm in 100% agreement with you on that. My point is that is it really going to make much of a difference anywhere but on paper? Do you honestly think that a law is going to stop people from smoking with their kids in the car? I think that even with a possibility of jail time for breaking this law that many will continue to do it. Most of those who really give a damn don't smoke around their kids without this law in place, and those that don't aren't really going to care if there's a law against it or not. 
*EDIT: *As far as the acceptability of something. Smoking was once an accepted and respected thing in our culture. Anyone who was anyone was a smoker whether it be cigarette, cigar, or pipe. Look at all the old movies and documentaries. Smoking was ever present and accepted for the most part. Times have changed and now everyone is jumping on the bandwagon. If it wasn't smoking it would be something else. People have to have an issue to to fight for or against. It's human nature. Smoking is just one of these issues in the spotlight. I just think the government in this case is really overstepping the line, and I have to ask myself what's next.


----------



## borndead1

Like I said before, these types of laws set a very dangerous legal precedent.

Would you be ok with a law that makes it illegal for you to smoke in your _house_ if you have kids?


----------



## Snakeyes

fireman43 said:


> I'm in 100% agreement with you on that. My point is that is it really going to make much of a difference anywhere but on paper? Do you honestly think that a law is going to stop people from smoking with their kids in the car? I think that even with a possibility of jail time for breaking this law that many will continue to do it. Most of those who really give a damn don't smoke around their kids without this law in place, and those that don't aren't really going to care if there's a law against it or not.
> *EDIT: *As far as the acceptability of something. Smoking was once an excepted and respected thing in our culture. Anyone who was anyone was a smoker whether it be cigarette, cigar, or pipe. Look at all the old movies and documentaries. Smoking was ever present and accepted for the most part. Times have changed and now everyone is jumping on the bandwagon. If it wasn't smoking it would be something else. People have to have an issue to to fight for or against. It's human nature. Smoking is just one of these issues in the spotlight. I just think the government in this case is really overstepping the line, and I have to ask myself what's next.


You're right, it may not have much of an effect on parents who already smoke around their kids. However, it does give law enforcement the recourse to punish those who are negligent to their kids when they do catch them. It's the same reason why we have laws that punish people who beat their children. Catching them might be tough (I do wonder about the enforcability of this law) but when they do, wouldn't you agree that it would be better to have a law in place to be able to punish them instead of saying, "You know that's really bad for your kids."


----------



## Snakeyes

borndead1 said:


> Like I said before, these types of laws set a very dangerous legal precedent.
> 
> Would you be ok with a law that makes it illegal for you to smoke in your _house_ if you have kids?


You know that's an interesting point. Other than size of contained air space, it's the same point and I think that's the kicker right there. The reason for the car law is that the amount of smoke per volume in the average car is probably quite high (density of smoke). In a house it would likely be less. On the surface I would say I would not agree with a law like this but if someone were making a case for abuse on a child and could prove that the density of smoke in the house was the equivalent of the density of smoke in a car, then I would say they put the child at unnecessary risk and should be held accountable. An overall law saying that you can't smoke in your house if you have kids...no, I would not support that because of the arguement stated above.

Maybe this is where this law should be heading in the first place. Instead of focusing on cars, focus on density of smoke exposure to children. The problem would be how do you measure and enforce this....hmmm....


----------



## TheRealBonger

You cannot have government determining things like this. If it is in fact as dangerous as they would like us to believe, then smoking should be outright banned. They cannont tax and keep it legal, then tell me I can't use it though. The kids are the parents responsibility not the governments. Each parent should be able to make the best choice for their circumstances. We continue to give more power to people that we then bitch about. Something needs to change. :gn:hn


----------



## DBall

TheRealBonger said:


> The kids are the parents responsibility not the governments. Each parent should be able to make the best choice for their circumstances.


Apparently, some people are too stupid to make the correct choices or this law would never have needed to even be proposed... :tu


----------



## Snakeyes

DBall said:


> Apparently, some people are too stupid to make the correct choices or this law would never have needed to even be proposed... :tu


That's true about any law. If no one murdered there wouldn't be a law saying we couldn't do it. If no one smoked in their cars with their kids around we wouldn't need a law. But people do both and we need laws in place to punish those that, as you put it, are too stupid. Sad but necessary.


----------



## Snakeyes

TheRealBonger said:


> You cannot have government determining things like this. The kids are the parents responsibility not the governments. Each parent *should* be able to make the best choice for their circumstances. We continue to give more power to people that we then bitch about. Something needs to change. :gn:hn


You're absolutely right, parents should make the best choices for their children and in a perfect world, all would. We would have no sexual, physical, or mental abuse of children and we wouldn't need the laws that punish those that commit these acts. The sad TRUTH is that too many parents often don't make the best choices. As a child, how do I stand up to my parents who are taking away my basic rights? That is where society MUST step in. We need laws that protect the rights of children and the ability to punish those that take them away, either through direct action or negligence. If you want to breathe in smoke, that is your God given right to do so as an adult. However, you do not have the right to take away your child's right to breathe clean air to satisfy your right. That is not negotiable whether you are the parent or not. I ask you this, if the government doesn't step in to protect the rights of your children who will? The parents???? They're the ones taking them away in the first place!

Something needs to change - very true. People need to start realizing that this is not about parental rights (or more accurately, your right to smoke where and when you like). It's about the rights of the child and protecting said rights. Your rights as a parent are not being touched one bit. The only thing this law does is make it a punishable offense for taking away the right of your child to breathe "cleaner" air. You can't tell me that's a bad thing.


----------



## CeeGar

Snakeyes said:


> You're absolutely right, parents should make the best choices for their children and in a perfect world, all would. We would have no sexual, physical, or mental abuse of children and we wouldn't need the laws that punish those that commit these acts. The sad TRUTH is that too many parents often don't make the best choices. As a child, how do I stand up to my parents who are taking away my basic rights? That is where society MUST step in. We need laws that protect the rights of children and the ability to punish those that take them away, either through direct action or negligence. If you want to breathe in smoke, that is your God given right to do so as an adult. However, you do not have the right to take away your child's right to breathe clean air to satisfy your right. That is not negotiable whether you are the parent or not. I ask you this, if the government doesn't step in to protect the rights of your children who will? The parents???? They're the ones taking them away in the first place!
> 
> Something needs to change - very true. People need to start realizing that this is not about parental rights (or more accurately, your right to smoke where and when you like). It's about the rights of the child and protecting said rights. Your rights as a parent are not being touched one bit. The only thing this law does is make it a punishable offense for taking away the right of your child to breathe "cleaner" air. You can't tell me that's a bad thing.


Very well said and I agree with you. I believe that some of the other folks on here are paranoid about this setting a precedent for more intrusive laws. I don't think this is unfounded. I too am worried about the continued dwindling of personal freedoms. I do believe though that when you infringe upon the rights of others something must be done. For better or for worse, these are the cards that we're being dealt in this day and age.


----------

